Slashdot Mirror
Is Sugar Toxic?
a_hanso tips an article by Gary Taubes in the NYTimes Magazine that evaluates claims from Dr. Robert Lustig's virally popular lecture on the negative effects of sugar on peoples' health. (YouTube video of the lecture.) Taubes discusses the science behind the claims and the odd willingness of people to accept Lustig's arguments without further inspection. Quoting:
"When I set out to interview public health authorities and researchers for this article, they would often initiate the interview with some variation of the comment 'surely you’ve spoken to Robert Lustig,' not because Lustig has done any of the key research on sugar himself, which he hasn’t, but because he’s willing to insist publicly and unambiguously, when most researchers are not, that sugar is a toxic substance that people abuse. In Lustig’s view, sugar should be thought of, like cigarettes and alcohol, as something that’s killing us. This brings us to the salient question: Can sugar possibly be as bad as Lustig says it is?"
just ask an authority on this topic, and that of health in general, for that matter: Ray Kurzweil.
Calling sugar "toxic" is probably a plot to demean the word "toxic" and make tobacco less regulated.
Either that, or he's fallen for a more subtle form of the Dihydrogen Monoxide troll, perpetrated by the chemistry of sugar itself.
Why, yes, when you shove about a metric ton of it up a lab rat's ass, yes, it's toxic.
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
If Sugar is bad for you, then howcome it's food?
In great enough quantities. It's called "drowning".
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Lusting has been extensively debunked by Alan Aragon http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/ and James Krieger, amongst others; and Gary Taubes' carb hypothesis requires that obese individuals are capable of violating the laws of thermodynamics and the laws of conservation of mass so he's just reaching for something, anything that can vaguely support his bullshit claims.
Fruits are loaded with sucrose, glucose, fructose, and dextrose.
Are you telling people not to eat fruit? or are you saying that crystallizing the sugars from it somehow makes sugar molecules poisonous?
MSG is just crystallized glutamate from seaweed. You get glutamate from lots of places.
All you're saying here is that people shouldn't eat food.
Now, if you want to modify it to say people shouldn't eat large quantities of something that they can only get in small quantities in nature, you might have a point. But otherwise you sound like a nutritional Chicken Little.
Sugar is definitely toxic in high concentrations for some organisms - that's why it's used as a preservative. High concentrations of sugar kill many bacteria.
There is no need, and it would be unscientific, to introduce some magical theory of "processed" foods versus "natural"foods: if the chemistry is identical, the biology is identical. The lecture is well grounded in the science of biochemistry.
Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
None of the results for Aspartame are conclusive.
Rambling on about something being toxic does not make it so. If you wish to show something is toxic, start by applying bounds to your statement and show how it falls within them.
What you state seems less like something being addictive or toxic (sugar is addictive like water is) and more the symptom of people overeating cheap processed foods rather than any valid scientific argument. Much like Dr. Lustig's statements.
Oh please, tell me you have a source for that statement.
If you read the article you will notice that they specifically state that HFCS is no better or worse than table sugar, and that they both get processed by your body in the same way. The difference between HFCS, white and brown table sugar (sucrose) is marginal and irrelevant.
Im not here now... Im out KILLING pepperoni
Just stop breathing for about 20 minutes.
You'll soon find the answer to all the radical arguments.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
I took radioactive water intravenously a few months ago.
Then the doctor ran a scanner around my body for several minutes, photographing the radiation density coming from my cardiac muscle.
Turns out my heart is fit as a Ferrari engine and needed no invasive intervention. Chalked the chest pains up to esophageal reflux. So now when I get one now, I eat half a Tums and immediately feel better.
Radioactive water is good for your health. So is Calcium, which not only strengthens your bones but tops off the stoichiometry of your neural and muscular depolarization channels.
It starts off with a teaspoon of sugar in your coffee...
Before long, you're eating tons of it, snorting it, injecting it into the blood.
Then you need harder stuff...
One of the most pervasive and powerful lobbies in Washington is the sugar lobby. They're worse than the oil companies going after climate research when it comes to attacking anyone who raises questions about their product.
They started the PR push back in advance of the story. Expect more in the days to come.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Basically your whole point rests upon "natural" vs. "processed" but can you even highlight how it is dangerous?
The problem seems to be, by far, quantity consumed rather than the nature of the material, unless you can present some compelling proof otherwise.
Given that glucose is what our bodies run on, I'd have to say no, sugar is NOT toxic to us. Is having too much sugar bad for you? Certainly. It's about balance. Too much of nearly anything (even water) is going to be bad for you.
High blood sugar causes your body damage. It will destroy capillaries in your extremities and retinas, making you blind and gangrenous. Sounds pretty toxic to me.
Sugar is also necessary for the body to function. If you don't eat any, your body will make some. However, the amount actually required to function is very small. When blood sugar is kept at ideal levels, all is well and sugar is not killing you.
The problem is, people are eating way too much of it these days. Not just sugar, but starches that break down into sugar very quickly when eaten. This causes blood sugar spikes, provoking your metabolism to go into defense mode. That means a spike of insulin to control the blood sugar level quickly. However, this often overcompensates, leaving blood sugar low, which drives one to eat again, much sooner than is actually necessary. Plus, the excess sugar is stored as fat, and fat leads to insulin resistance over the long haul -- diabetes.
People need to eat more protein and fat, and choose carbohydrates that are absorbed into the system slowly. Keep the blood sugar on an even keel and you can break the cycle of endless hunger. You'll lose weight without having to diet, because you won't be driven to eat by the ping-ponging of your blood sugar level. And the fine structures of your body will sustain less damage from the blood sugar spikes, meaning you'll weather aging a lot better.
Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.
Almost all that we eat is converted to sugar by our own bodies. Protein is the exception. The catch is that carmelization occurs and this end product clogs our internal organs. It is one reason why older peoples eyes don't look as clear as when they were young. So yes sugar does help to kill you and there is nothing at all that you can do about it other than a mild state of starvation all your life. Prevention may extend life but it ruins the quality of life to such a degree that one almost must be perverted to maintain that degree of hunger.
Whet we are seeing are people looking for a way to get attention and make money simply by spouting nonsense. Think about the extent of this phony evangelism. How many people have made money, one way or another, by selling diets and diet products? And every one of those diets and diet products was hot air with a liberal dose of lies melted in to the alloy. Yet simply lying and stealing money with false health claims is not enough to be put in prison these days. And the suckers keep right on lining up to lose their money. Whether it's the daily miracle cure for arthritis or the miracle weight loss method it is all nonsense.
How is processed sugar chemically different from the sugar in the plant it's extracted from?
Do you know? Or do you not even consider that?
There is a precedent. Saturated fat from natural sources contains no trans-fats, but saturated fat made by hydrogenating vegetable oils has significant trans-fats (trans-fats are deformed fat molecules that a cellular system, whether vegetable or animal, wouldn't produce, but bubbling hydrogen through a vat of fat doesn't have molecular-level geometric control of the production process). Saturated fat is not bad for you but trans-fats are.
So is there something about the production of sugar in concentrated form that chemically alters it so that it has poison in it? What is the altered chemical? Has it been detected in the concentrated sugar?
Just how many people posting replies here have actually, you know-- watched the hour long presentation created by Mr. Lustig all the way through?
In the presentation, Lustig lists the metabolic pathway that fructose (The sugar he rants about) has to go through in order to be processed by the body, and explains why it is toxic in the quantities that people eat it in.
What is drawing fire here, is that lustig rightly mentions that sucrose is just a glucose and a fructose bound together by an ether bond, and metabolically speaking is practically identical to HFCS. (Something the corn refiner's association is also quick to point out.)
The real point of the presentation is to point out that the US population is eating considerably more sugar than it was 50 years ago, with a more than 300% increase in fructose consumption specifically.
He advocates reduction of fructose consumption, based on several cited studies he lists in his viral video presentation.
That said, armchair nerd pundits like us have no place to try to debunk such claims, since as far as I know none of us are licensed dieticians or physicians. As such, throwing useless arguments like "Dihydrogen oxide poisoning" around are non-sequitors at best, and pointless mud slinging at worst.
Having seen the presentation, and seen that he cites dozens of studies that can be independently examined, (and therefor verified), I feel that his presentation is of higher quality than say, a certain celebrity's rants about immunity shots and autism are. As such, it deserves more meaty rebuttles than what I am reading here on slashdot.
I can only speak for myself, not the parent, but HFCS is far more damaging than an equivalent number of calories from white sugar. Both are processed, one far more so than the other. Anyway, HFCS elicits migraines, while regular sugar just gives me a sugar high because I don't eat much sweet food or food with much sugar in it.
I have read that the highly processed sugars such as HFCS are absorbed by the body much more readily, providing a faster, higher sugar high. When your body has to expend energy to release the sugar molecules from naturally-occurring substances, you get a more even dose. If you are injecting highly processed sugars directly into your blood (i.e. a Coke), your body barely has to work at all and is absorbing more sugar faster than it would with a natural substance (e.g. eating an orange, pulp and all).
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
Fructose goes to the liver. This is why it doesn't burn off immediately like sucrose.
So fructose is worse than sucrose. High fructose corn syrup is the worst form of fructose because it keeps insulin levels high for a long period of time, it prevents the body from burning fat as well.
So if I down a cube of fiber-con with my spoonful of sugar, am I safe?
All sugar is Organic. It's all made of long or short chains of Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen.
Sucrose C12H22O11
Glucose C6H12O6
Fructose C6H12O6
Lactose C12H22O11
Galactose C6H12O6
Maltose C12H22O11
Can't see anything non Organic.
Well put me in the ignorant group because countless research has been spent on this subject... HFCS (55% fructose - 45% glucose) is no worse than sucrose (50% fructose - 50% glucose)... That problem is the sheer amount of calories... Also, the only reason they there is slightly more fructose than glucose is simply because they found it tastes sweeter this way. Meaning, HFCS actually has FEWER calories then a similar sweeter that uses sucrose...
> "potential organ damage from GMO corn"
I agree with Microlith: do you have a source for that? Additionally, "GMO corn" is not one thing. Are you suggesting that some are dangerous (based on individual studies of different varieties of GMO corn) or that GMO corn is dangerous simply because GMO == "Frankenfood", which would be a silly accusation to make?
take an apple, 50 calories sugar, 2 g fiber. Healthy food. Horrible fruit stipes, almost twice calories of an apple, less than half he fiber, and can be eaten endlessly.
A few bottles of coke, or fruit punch, several fuit strip snacks, basically what people think is an ok diet, and one has 2000 calories with no nutrition, and hundreds of grams of refined and concentrated sugar, much more than is healthy.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
There is no Magic. The amount of sugar, be it sucrose, fructose or glucose of dextrose in the average North American Diet is a major problem, but processed of not; fructose is fructose, sucrose is sucrose etc, the chemical does not change, nor does your bodies reaction to it.
Don't forget the fiber. The rare times I drink sugar, it is something like orange juice with extra pulp. I'm not sure what it does for sugar absorption, but I do know two things. The insoluable fiber keeps me regular. Second, the soluable fiber will bond with the carbohydrates in the juice, so the cholesterol in the food I'm eating at the same time cannot do the same and enter my bloodstream.
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
Sugar is toxic, but fiber is the "antidote". It causes the sugar to be released into the bloodstream more slowly so the liver can metabolize it properly. If you eat food with sugar in its natural form, for example fruit, it's absorbed more slowly. You can get a rough idea of how quickly sugar from foods is absorbed by looking at their glycemic index. Essentially, whole fruits and vegetables have a low glycemic index, and precessed foods such as sugar, white bread, and white rice have a high glycemic index. People who maintain a low-GI diet have less incidence of diabetes and heart disease.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
There is research to indicate that sugar induced hyperactivity doesn't exist. You most likely get a "sugar high" because you think you'll get a "sugar high" or perhaps an allergy to lemons.
http://www.ccmr.cornell.edu/education/ask/index.html?quid=241
Huh! What's the difference between fructose from corn, and fructose from other sources?
Well put me in the ignorant group because countless research has been spent on this subject... HFCS (55% fructose - 45% glucose) is no worse than sucrose (50% fructose - 50% glucose)... That problem is the sheer amount of calories
And, if Lustig is right, the stuff he talks about (which damns HFCS and sucrose equally).
Also, the only reason they there is slightly more fructose than glucose is simply because they found it tastes sweeter this way. Meaning, HFCS actually has FEWER calories then a similar sweeter that uses sucrose...
If they were sweetened to the same level -- which they aren't. And that doesn't even get to the fact that HFCS is cheap enough that it's in food that would likely not have any sugar otherwise.
Please bear in mind that HFCS (in mainstream use) is either 55% Fructose/42% Glucose (used mainly in drinks) or 42% Fructose/53% Glucose (typically used in food and baked goods). Table sugar consists of Sucrose, which when absorbed by the body breaks down into 50% Fructose/50% Glucose. Any difference between the two is a matter of marketing.
A drug is "Articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals."
Sugar is a food as foods are "Any substance consumed to provide nutritional support for the body."
Indeed it does provide nutritional support for the body, in the form of energy. What's more you find sugar is essential to the function of a body. Glucose is a cell's primary energy storage and metabolic intermediate. Without it, your body does not function.
So sorry, it isn't a drug. Attempting to redefine it doesn't change that and is rather silly. That people eat too much of it is not relevant. Call it a drug because people east too much and you end up calling all foods drugs since people eat too much of all foods, fats, proteins, etc.
What is actually claimed is not that sugar (rather generic term which can mean carbohydrate) is toxic, but specifically that fructose has similar effect on the liver metabolism as alcohol (diabetics have fatty liver just like alcoholics), and fructose negative effect on the liver is worsened if caloric needs are already met. Specifically, if fructose metabolism in the liver is compared to alcohol metabolism you will see similar/same by-products of both. The claims made are verifiable, although a do require a bit biochemistry understanding.
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
Bad press.
As a person with mild fructose malabsorbtion I can say it's packaging that makes a difference too. I can eat fruit without a problem, but the same ammount of fructose in something like HFCS brings on my symptoms.
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
Don't forget the fiber. The rare times I drink sugar, it is something like orange juice with extra pulp.
Don't think that the extra pulp gets you much fiber... even Tropicana Extra Pulp has 0g fiber listed on their nutrition facts.
You never said you read the entire article, either, and it's apparent you didn't see at any of it. Otherwise you'd know there isn't any difference between "real sugar" that your "peasants" can't afford and the HFCS that's being used as a "population control" mechanism as you absurdly claim.
The Romans didn't use sugar; they sweetened their food with lead.
Point being that just because we put it in every food we eat doesn't mean it's safe or healthy.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Where to begin. We can start with the first word of your post. "Lusting" is an activity I enjoy with redheads. Lustig is a scientist.
Secondly, Aragon makes a claim that Lustig doesn't nor does the article if you manage past the first few words. HFCS and sugar are equivalent nutritionally and they're both bad. Fructose is metabolized differently however (Aragon apparently can't read as well and decided to go the whole HFCS vs sucrose thing). Vis a vis the Japanese diet, he also tries to use anecdote (even when all of the posts he cites don't even support him!) and you'd do much better just to measure per capita sugar consumption (you know, sugar made minus sugar exported (or used for non-human consumption)) divided by number of people. This actual data (as cited in the TFA that you didn't read) supports the author's assertion, whereas using the plural of anecdote as data does not. (However, I would kill to have Japanese-style soft drink machines where literally one or two things actually contain sugar. You can't even find unsweetened tea in the states except at specialty stores for the most part.)
Lastly, Aragon plays the wonderful correlation/causality card. Which works for a great number of things, but unfortunately, scientists interesting in societal behavior can't just force people to adhere to their dietary whims randomly.
I'd like to see further research done in say, a controlled environment like a school where some bureaucrat can ban sugar from products the school sells and see if children become healthier. But bringing in thermodynamics to sound smart without the vaguely inclination of what you're even referring to is merely arrogant.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
Or insufficient quantities.
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
If the sugar lobby is so powerful, why is HFCS used in everything instead? Obviously they've got nothing on the corn lobbyists.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Nowadays Type 2 diabetes is seen more frequently in younger people too, apparently due to HFCS consumption. It isn't really news, it's been known for awhile.
Caveat Utilitor
Translation: "Lustig" is German for funny (and similar concepts.
Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
If you look at the now famous Lustig video you will see that the difference is fiber. He said something to the effect, that in nature wherever God put the poison he also put the antidote. The antidote is fiber. Fiber undoes most of the dangerous effects of fructose. And in nature fiber is present everywhere where you can find fructose. Thus if you eat fructose with fiber, you will be ok, and it might even be healthy for you.
The problem with "processed" sugar is that it is usually processed to get all of the fiber out. So you eat it without the fiber and you get all the dangerous effects. I suppose if you could eat a head of lettuce simultaneously with every can of coke you drink you would be ok, but nobody does that.
This is all according to Dr. Lustig of course, but it seems pretty convincing to me.
Compared to HFCS, sugar is as safe as water.
Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
I was on statins for about a year and a half after unsuccessfully trying to better my numbers with a "low-cholesterol low-saturated fat" diet. My doctor chalked up my numbers to genes and sent me on my way with a script.
The statins made me feel terrible (back pains, low energy, heart palpitations, general fogginess and difficulty concentrating) so I gave them up. I was a bit worried about the heart palpitations, so I had a cardiac workup done - everything checked out OK.
After reading a bunch of stuff linking sugars to high cholesterol, I decided to try a low-sugar/carb diet (Mediterranean diet). It worked amazingly well. My total cholesterol dropped from 260 before statins to 175. I was around 200 on the statins. Ratios are good as well.
The other nice side-effect of cutting out sugars - I'm 20 pounds lighter now.
-ted
Sugar, salt, vitamins, calcium, iron, water, etc... anything is toxic/harmful if abused. Calling sugar toxic is idiotic.
I did this then I clicked on this.
The actual video is about the negative impact of increasing our sugar consumption on a massive scale compared to previous generations. So if vitamin D was injected into nearly every snack food and soft drink we had, vigorously marketed, and consumed on a larger scale - yeah it would be a problem. You'd have increased incidents of Vitamin D overdose. As it stands right now we have companies adding things like vitamin C and calcium into soft drinks, so it isn't so far fetched an idea.
Move out of the deep South. Unsweetened tea is common where I am, and also was common in the DC area where I grew up. It was crappy stuff, something I can't bring myself to drink because of how bad it tastes, but it is unsweetened tea. It took me years to learn how to brew tea and realize that the problem is restaurants are afraid of boiling water and thus brew black teas meant for seeping in water that is initially at a boiling temperature, at temperatures more suitable for delicate white or green teas, 140 F or less. To top it off, they don't even understand brew times up here.
Cheap amber oolong seems easy to find at those hole in the wall Chinese restaurants scattered everywhere, usually some form of teabag oolong brewed in a specialty tea brewing device that will keep a decent temperature for that tea, but don't try a black tea in those things. Those teas are never sweetened unless you add sugar at the table.
If you are looking for tea bags, most grocers I've seen have at least cheap, lousy teabags.
And yes, I buy real tea from a specialty store, but I do realize what is out there in tea, and in an emergency can make something I can at least stand to drink.
"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend unto the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire
I have it. I am middle aged and not obese (male, 6', 170lbs).
It could have been partly caused by my sedentary coding lifestyle plus consumption of lots of fruit juice and an only averagely healthy diet partly by genetic predisposition (one relative in two previous generations). But I'm only one case so who knows.
A microbiology phd acquaintance of mine advised that insulin resistance can (inability of sugar to be taken into cells through the cell wall) can be caused by repeated over-use of the insulin system through frequent consumption of high glycemic index foods/drinks. The system basically has a certain lifetime capacity and it wears out from frequent insulin floods/shocks.
So for me now, sugar definitely IS toxic, and, since the diabetes prevents the sugar getting in and feeding my cells, it causes a craving for more quick-sugary stuff. And the craving going away when given in to feels like it releases dopamine or whatever. So potentially addictive too.
According to the diabetes education/support team at the hospital (dietitian, specialist nurse etc) we should eat a diet free from simple sugars and fluffy highly processed carbs. Sugar with lots of fiber is ok. You need your sugar, but taking it with lots of fiber (whole grains, vegetables etc) slows down (smooths out over time) the sugar metabolism and reduces insulin floods and excarbation of the problem. It also reduces incidence of high blood-sugar levels which is what kills you. High blood-sugar levels over time actually corrodes small blood vessels (you know, the ones in your organs and feet and hands and eyes. These tissues then die eventually.
So eat one fistful of carbs (preferrably complex) and one fistful of protein and as many vegetables as you want. You will probably notice that almost all restaurant meals are two fistfuls of simple carbs and a little bit of protein, lots of fat, a token vegetable. The reverse of what you need.
You can snack on more vegetables, fruit, high-protein and/or high-fibre snacks. Snacking (on these healthier things) is actually good because of the more even consumption of sugar (supply of energy) over the day.
This advice applies to everyone. Avoid diabetes and get generally healthier.
My advice based on my experience and the advice of the experts who've coached me is to think of high refined-sugar-content and high simple-carb foods as toxic. You'll probably live longer.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Once again the slashdot summary is misleading. I urge everyone to see the referenced video and read the article afterwards. They are very informative. However, I should point out that the slashdot summary makes it look like the New York Times article is kind of dismissing Lustig's video. This is not true, the article is actually mostly supportive of Lustig's theories while providing much more historical information.
No. The OP is exactly right. Elevated blood glucose levels are quite toxic to the body. Ask anyone with type-1 diabetes why their sense of taste is failing, and why they have to have an eyesight test for their driver's license more often than the rest of us.
In a healthy individual, insulin makes sure blood glucose doesn't stay too high for too long. This does not negate the fact that, while necessary, glucose does have the ability to seriously damage your body.
Be careful. People in masks cannot be trusted.
As a scientist, I like to base my opinions on evidence wherever possible.
Lustig makes strong points which are backed up by studies (cited in his lecture) and are consistent with known biochemical pathways (which he explains).
The vast majority of responses here are complete bunkum: anecdotal evidence, true facts which sound like they are relevant ("you can drown in water!"), and misrepresentation of his central point ("our bodies *need* glucose! He's crazy!")
If you disagree with his position and have evidence to back that up, I'll listen to what you have to say.
Everyone else - you're going to get really frustrated when I don't change my opinion because of what you say.
Let's let evidence and logic have it's moment here.
And Lustig says fructose is deadly, regardless of it's source. He doesn't differentiate between granulated sugar and high fructose corn syrup; he's saying you should eat as little fructose as possible, and when you do, make sure it's something with fiber.
This is something that has been known in the diabetes circles for a long time.
http://www.joslin.org/info/how_does_fiber_affect_blood_glucose_levels.html
It's one of the basic tenants in diabetic diets and in weight training. When my (now ex) wife had some serious medical problems I had to look into some different diet programs. What Lustig is advocating is what is spelled out in the Schwartzbien Principle.
http://www.everydiet.org/diet/schwarzbein-principle
I can only say that I followed the diet and lost 60 lbs (while she remained fat until she started doing coke and I don't know whatever else but that's a different story). This shit works and it's backed by research other than Lustigs.
Calling sugar "toxic" is probably a plot to demean the word "toxic" and make tobacco less regulated.
If you introduce the "Western diet" to cultures that don't have it, those people become hypertensive, get heart disease, obese, and die earlier.
Is there a more appropriate word than 'toxic'? Is "Really bad for you" somehow more politically correct?
Maybe it's not the fructose. Maybe it's the refined starches, or the bad fats, or the lack of vegetables. But the 100+ pounds of sugar a year can't be a nutritional benefit, unless you're riding the Tour de France - your body isn't evolved for that. Like they say, eat the outside of the supermarket, stay away from the middle.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
And heroin is "just" purified and crystallized extract of a poppy plant.
Are you saying that just because something "just" comes from a plant that it's got to be good for you?
When you eat fruit, you're getting a lot more than "just" sugar. When you eat "just" sugar, you're not.
Tell you what, I'll eat a balanced diet and you live on high fructose corn syrup and water. Let's see if one is "just" the same as the other. Let's see just how "toxic" sugar can be.
You'll say, "well of course. Everyone should eat a balanced diet." But what's passing in the industrialized groceries of 2011 as a "balanced" diet is creating a society of people who are so fat that before middle age they have to drive around on little scooters just to fill their basket with foods that have a higher concentration of "just" sugar than any civilization that ever walked the earth. And there are entire sections of town where there are absolutely no places to buy produce or simple grains and staples. None. Yet McDonalds and other purveyors of industrial food are on every other corner in those same neighborhoods. How healthy do you think the people in those neighborhoods are going to be?
Of course sugar isn't "toxic". But in the concentrations that it's currently showing up on our grocery shelves it is a major contributor to most of the diseases that are killing people (the ones that are obesity-related).
You are welcome on my lawn.
So then I did this and you are correct there is little research in humans but of those few studies there are some that show more negative side effects than 'table sugar' and some that show the same effects as 'table sugar'. I did not see one that showed less negative side effects.
:)
Tests with rats may not be proof but they can be an indicator and are not 'unrelated'. Almost all research agrees that different sugars are different even if it's just that they are sweeter. More sweet per calorie may lead to a slower metabolic response to sweets as well as gorging on sweets according to some indicators (animal testing)
I know this is not the cause and effect proof you are looking for. So far there doesn't appear to be a large well controlled study involving humans. However, for me there are indications that HFCS may have more negative side effects than 'table sugar' and little in the way that it has less negative side effects.
Hopefully, you're free to consume whatever you want.
Maybe the reason nobody really takes anything scientists say at face value is that it all changes 3 days later
I think you are confusing scientists with popular news writers that misqoute and half quote scientists. The basic facts about metabolism and bio-chemistry haven't evolved that fast at all
FIBER. Fiber is the Only difference. In modern society, our fiber intake is near 10% of it's original levels thousands of years ago. Have you watched the video? Fiber is the antidote to fructose. In natural sources, it's balanced against the fructose content. It's one of his most important points his video and research.
I've just now reviewed Alan Aragon's debunking of Lustig's claims, roundly publicized here in several comments. Including some of the cited references from that article.
Alan's rebuttal was a debate between himself and Lustig. The issues wander the landscape of unrelated factual errors (Lustig claims that the Japanese have no added fructose in their diet), cites of papers which show the data being inconclusive (specifically, he's citing absence of evidence as evidence of absence), and painting Lustig with the same brush as more "fringe" claimants.
And of course it wasn't the actual debate, but a summary of the debate, and written by Alan. He must have won the debate too - he says so in his summary.
In comparing the two positions, I find Alan's rebuttal lacking in scientific rigor. If a half-dozen or so studies can be found (or undertaken) which target Lustig's claims directly and show no evidence for the things that he says, that would counter the half-dozen or so studies that form the basis of Lustig's lecture.
Until then, I assign higher likelyhood to Lustig. I'll continue to hold this position until actual scientists chime in with conclusions based on evidence.
Why is everyone parroting the trope that "everything is toxic in large quantities" without asking whether the modern Western diet is above the threshold of excess? Isn't that what we're talking about here?
I feel like the libertarians in the crowd are trying to dismiss a valid question before it's answered.
Actually, the hypothesis is that fructose is harmful, not glucose. The most widely used sweetening agents are sucrose and high fructose corn syrup, both of which are about 50% fructose.
Consider Richard Dawkins: He is very popular, and considered a good speaker. Why? Because he has one issue, and he's willing to talk about it all day long. This speaker, too, is sensationalist and myopic. But he is making well-justified points, backed up by good data, and so he's worth listening to. The criticisms and "debunking" of his work on the various blogs are not refuting his claims; rather, they are arguing that fructose is one of many contributors to obesity. If the worst criticism of the 90-minute video is that it's not broad enough, then it was a worthwhile video indeed.
Seriously, if sugar were toxic, HOW IN THE FUCK COULD ANY OF US HAVE SURVIVED CHILDHOOD?
Every kid I knew ate sugar laden cereal, drank sugar laden soft drinks and had candy bars with cake and ice cream for dessert.
LK
The answer to your question is, because you don't understand the definition of "toxic". There's acute toxicity, and there's chronic toxicity. If you're going to argue that survival is the only criteria by which you judge toxicity, then I assume you're also fine with kids smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, and snorting cocaine.
Not every kid who eats sugar will get fat or have health problems at the same rate. Some might never even get fat because their metabolism is just built to handle sugar better. However, most cigarette smokers also don't get lung cancer. Are you going to argue that cigarettes are healthy? Or not a problem?
"The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well."
All I can say is watch the video and then comment. I did, was more informative than most videos Ive seen lately, and poses an excellent argument on the possible cause of increased sugar leading to obesity. I think it is something worth seriously considering if you are overweight or have the health issues stated. In the last week since I saw it I cut out most processed sugars and am actually feeling better than I have in a long while.
Watch the video, decide for yourself. Will it kill you to cut down on HFCS or processed sugar? Not at all. And could it help? quite probably, so to me its worth a try.
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
First - his main beef is with fructose.
Second - the chemistry of the body breaks refined sugar (sucrose) into its component parts fructose and glucose, hence his phrase "all sugar is bad for you"
Third - chemically the body treats fructose in the exact same way as ethanol (alcohol).
Fourth - If you are going to disagree with someone read their statements or watch the videos.
Fifth - Statistics don't lie, only interpreters do. Fat consumption has gone down; heart disease, diabetes and other forms of "metabolic disorders" have gone up.
Sixth - Come on people, we know the government is in bed with corporations. If those two entities are in agreement against something someone is saying it most likely is the truth.
The only reason to come against it is because we don't want to give up something in our personal lifestyle. We live in America though, we can know it's bad and not give a crap. Enjoy your Pepsi, I do. Just not as often.
Lastly, who among the doubters are going to say with honesty, and integrity that soda, donuts, cookies and such things are actually healthy for us?
---- Don't be irreplaceable. If you can't be replaced, you can't be promoted.
the toxicity of sugar (sucrose, glucose, fructose, etc) is one of things that almost no researcher in the know dares to mention publicly because it would be career (and funding) suicide. the processed food industry is far too powerful a lobby group.
but the researchers know. check medline. almost every research article on diabetes begins with words to the effect of "fed the rats sugar until they developed diabetes". feeding rats sugar is THE consistently reproducible method of inducing diabetes.
and this is what the processed food lobby is doing to consumers every day with sugar in absofuckinglutely everything. even things you think wouldn't have sugar because they're supposed to be salty or sour or savoury or anything-else-but-sweet have sugar in them. because it's cheap, it's addictive (esp. to children and adults with poor impulse control - i.e. most of the population), and it's a preservative.
sugar in our diet isn't bad when it's rare and unrefined (as it is in fruits and vegetables etc. and in our natural pre-agriculture diet it WAS rare, but it was a huge amount of easily absorbed energy which is why we evolved the ability to taste sweetness...and why we also evolved to *like* it). even when humans first discovered processed sugar from sugar cane a few hundred years ago it wasn't a huge problem because it was very expensive (like all spices were) - only the rich could afford it.
even the improvement of refinery processes that made sugar became extremely refined and extremely cheap wasn't that bad....it was only when "food" factories started putting it in *everything* so that it became almost impossible to avoid eating far too much of the stuff that it became a problem.
and this, btw, is also why the poor (and the time-poor) suffer from diabetes more than the rich do - the rich can afford to eat well. the poor can't (money-wise AND time-wise).
tldr;
Summary:
Instead of a spoonful of sugar in your coffee, put a potato.
The problem seems to be, by far, quantity consumed rather than the nature of the material, unless you can present some compelling proof otherwise.
Quite so - but then that is the case for anything: even things like strychnin can have beneficial effects if the dose is small enough. And on the other hand, oxygen is quite toxic too.
I haven't bothered reading the article, the subject seemed too sensationalistic, but as they say: everything is good in moderation. It is a question of finding the right balance, eating just enough and learning to enjoy the things that are beneficial to your health.
That last part often surprises people: that you can learn to enjoy something that you think you don't like, and that you can learn not to like the things you crave. However, my own, personal experience is exactly that. I used to shovel down sugary/fatty food like cake, large steaks, pizzas etc. Now I am practically a vegetarian; I find that I more and more prefer to avoid meat, not for ideological reasons, just because it isn't so satisfying, it feels heavy in the stomach - and there are so many really delicious ways of cooking vegetables. Same thing with sugar - I recently bought a Coke, and I had to throw it out because it was so sickeningly sweet.
But most importantly, stuff made with "real sugar" doesn't taste like it used to when they use HFCS instead, and you wind up consuming more because it isn't as satisfying.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Too much of many different kinds of things can be toxic. Hell, too much water can be toxic (no, really, it can. look up overhydration, also commonly known as water intoxication). People eat sugar all the time without severe negative effects. Like many things though, it's the people who go overboard with it that run in to problems.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Taube's article is pretty long. It's still much faster to read it than to watch Lustig's whole presentation. If you can, do both, of course. If you can't or won't WTFV, then RTFA. If you can't or won't RTFA, then here's a summary.
Yes, too much of anything is toxic. Duh. That's not what Lustig or Taube are talking about. They're also not talking about "empty calories" -- the consumption of lots of sugar without other nutrients, meaning your overall calorie intake is higher, so you get fat and have obesity-related problems.
What they're talking about is the question of whether fructose directly causes health problems of its own accord -- namely, things like fatty liver and insulin resistance, things which may in turn raise the risk of diabetes and cancer independent of whether you get fat.
What Taube will tell you, that Lustig won't, is that the research is not conclusive. It all shows very strong correlation, but that of course isn't causation. And that's caused all these disputes of what the real problem is, particularly whether it's fat or sugar that's responsible.
Taube says that we should be considering the possibility that it's both; or at least, abandoning the idea that it must be either-or. Similarly, on the question of whether it's sucrose or HFCS that's worse, he suggests that they're so similar (both are glucose-fructose mixtures in nearly equal proportions) that they're probably both just as bad as each other.
Too much of anything is toxic; but (Taube says) because the research is inconclusive, nobody can say how much fructose is "too much". It's an established fact that short-term, high-dose fructose intake causes these problems (fatty liver et al.), but it's not known what long-term intake at the levels currently typical in the US will do.
The circumstantial evidence suggests that it will cause the same problems, eventually. And of course various people (like Lustig) have seized on this circumstantial stuff as damning evidence. But just because they're overstating the case, doesn't mean they're wrong, says Taube.
Actually, one part of the reason HFCS is so widespread is the sugar lobby. The US has few sugar growers, but thanks to their lobbyists, there are tariffs on imported sugar. The US pays a much higher price for "real sugar" than most of the rest of the world.
The other part is, as you mentioned, the corn lobbyists and the huge corn subsidies they pull in. Because corn prices are artificially low, and sugar prices artificially high, it's cheaper to use HFCS in everything.
Redundancy is good And also good.
As usual on Slashdot people post without actually RTFA at all... His point is that Fructose is 10x worse than Glucose, because it inhibits satiation response meaning you eat more, as well as cross linking compounds in the liver (sclerosis) leading to liver failure. Also that compared to glucose; 10x more fructose reaches the liver that needs to be processed, and that because of the specifics of fructose processing reaction - It isn't processed, leading to build up, generation of high density LDL protein (heart attacks), insulin resistance, diabetes. Its a toxin! Simple! And much more toxic than water.
The chemical doesn't change, but the way it is processed by the body is different. The way your body ends up receiving sugar via an apple or a HFCS soda seems to be just as important as the amount. We evolved to eat whole fruit, not to drink HFCS.
The problem with that theory is that 500 years ago in Mexico and Spain if I got Leukemia, I'd die right away from it and they'd not be able to diagnose me.
100 years ago in Mexico or Spain if I got Leukemia they' might correctly diagnose me, which leads to a steady rise over pre-Columbian cancer rates.
Today in Mexico or Spain if I get Leukemia, they are much better at diagnosis and then statistical analysis of Leukemia rates.
So did Spanish contact to Mesoamerica lead to increased cancer rates? Did rising sugar use lead to it?